You don't believe in the death penalty?

[KurtGodel77]

Nice to see you know as much about relativistic physics, cosmology, and theology as you do about everything else... 

229852[/snapback]

I have the feeling that most of the people on these boards were . . . aware of your dislike for me before reading your post. Considering that you haven't actually managed to refute any of the points I've made in our recent discussions--despite your pitiful attempts to do so--I can see why you'd dislike me. If I were you, I'd be jealous of me too.

[Pete]

I have the feeling that most of the people on these boards were . . .  aware of your dislike for me before reading your post. Considering that you haven't actually managed to refute any of the points I've made in our recent discussions--despite your pitiful attempts to do so--I can see why you'd dislike me. If I were you, I'd be jealous of me too. 

229955[/snapback]

Dont let Tom bother you. He should be jealous of you- you have social skills

[KurtGodel77]

Dont let Tom bother you.  He should be jealous of you- you have social skills

229962[/snapback]

I appreciate the support, Pete. Actually Tom doesn't bother me, because he's hardly the first person I've encountered who only knows how to express disagreement by attacking the intelligence of the person he's disagreeing with. It's a cheap and easy tactic when you really think about it.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I appreciate the support, Pete. Actually Tom doesn't bother me, because he's hardly the first person I've encountered who only knows how to express disagreement by attacking the intelligence of the person he's disagreeing with. It's a cheap and easy tactic when you really think about it.

229997[/snapback]

 

I've got your back too, bro. I'm by no means a religious person (I'm agnostic), but it's annoying to read all the pseudo-intellectuals come out from the dark whenever a religion vs. science topic comes up. Most of these guys who posted to bash your religious beliefs don't even know the first thing about science, which is even funnier. They just want to feel better about their miserable lives, so they decide to slam a guy who has found religion and who seems to otherwise be at peace with life.

[Ralonzo]

In all seriousness though, these people are beyond sick, and what would killing them with and electric chair or injecting them with lethal toxins do?

229311[/snapback]

 

It'd stop them from breathing my air. That's enough.

[BB2004]

Speaking of sick, twisted individuals....

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/05/alabama.killings/index.html

 

Can't think of a much worse way to go...

 

CW

229536[/snapback]

 

Not much difference in that story compared to the one that was posted earlier. An awful story not doubt. The difference between the two is that the other one was two sick twisted people working together.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I've got your back too, bro. I'm by no means a religious person (I'm agnostic), but it's annoying to read all the pseudo-intellectuals come out from the dark whenever a religion vs. science topic comes up. Most of these guys who posted to bash your religious beliefs don't even know the first thing about science, which is even funnier. They just want to feel better about their miserable lives, so they decide to slam a guy who has found religion and who seems to otherwise be at peace with life.

230012[/snapback]

 

Eh, scratch that thought. Sorry Kurt, but tonight just proved that God does NOT exist.

[KurtGodel77]

Eh, scratch that thought. Sorry Kurt, but tonight just proved that God does NOT exist.

230325[/snapback]

lol. I was actually rooting for the Patriots. I figure that it's time for the rest of the league to see what we have to deal with twice each year.

 

I really, really, really hope the Patriots don't make it to the Super Bowl next year though. Only one team has made it to more than two Super Bowls in a row, and I'd just as soon things stayed that way.

[KurtGodel77]

I've got your back too, bro. I'm by no means a religious person (I'm agnostic), but it's annoying to read all the pseudo-intellectuals come out from the dark whenever a religion vs. science topic comes up. Most of these guys who posted to bash your religious beliefs don't even know the first thing about science, which is even funnier. They just want to feel better about their miserable lives, so they decide to slam a guy who has found religion and who seems to otherwise be at peace with life.

230012[/snapback]

Thanks for writing this.

[CarolinaBill99]

You are aware that the original version of Genesis wasn't written in English, right? Now, maybe you're a Hebrew scholar who has strong opinions about whether the Hebrew word for day can be used to mean a period of 24 hours.

 

But even if you are; Schroeder addressed your concerns by pointing out that old writings interpreting the Genesis text stated that the 6 days of Creation were different from other days. Schroeder was careful to find old writings to support this, so that he could not be accused of reinventing Biblical interpretation to suit the needs of science.

229847[/snapback]

 

Not to start up a completely different rant, as usual the truth certainly lies somewhere inbetween both of your arguments. First off, the same old testament was written by men living in stone houses that thought the world was the center of the universe and was flat. Time is relative which is why Abraham lived to be 900 year old. I guess it was a good diet!! Also, when was the first complete Bible for those able to read published?? 1500's.... How many times have the stories of creationism been changed to suit the people telling the stories? The Genesis story has nothing to do with how the world was created. It was written by men who did not even know the basic principles of physics..

However, I do not believe that Science solves all the problems of the world or answers many questions. Usually, it creates more questions than answers and as a scientist myself I agree with that. Most of the greatest scientists the world has ever seen believe in one God or another. It helps us to bridge the answers that science just can't reach.

Just one favor Kurt....Please do not put Schoeder out there as a real scientific source. Most of his arguements are laughed at in the scientific world like Von Daniken's belief that aliens created the pyramids!!!

 

Go Bills!!!!

[KurtGodel77]

Not to start up a completely different rant, as usual the truth certainly lies somewhere inbetween both of your arguments. First off, the same old testament was written by men living in stone houses that thought the world was the center of the universe and was flat. Time is relative which is why Abraham lived to be 900 year old. I guess it was a good diet!!  Also, when was the first complete Bible for those able to read published??  1500's.... How many times have the stories of creationism been changed to suit the people telling the stories?  The Genesis story has nothing to do with how the world was created. It was written by men who did not even know the basic principles of physics..

However, I do not believe that Science solves all the problems of the world or answers many questions. Usually, it creates more questions than answers and as a scientist myself I agree with that. Most of the greatest scientists the world has ever seen believe in one God or another. It helps us to bridge the answers that science just can't reach.

Just one favor Kurt....Please do not put Schoeder out there as a real scientific source. Most of his arguements are laughed at in the scientific world like Von Daniken's belief that aliens created the pyramids!!! 

 

Go Bills!!!!

230508[/snapback]

I'd be interested to know the names of the scientists who "laughed at" Shroeder. I mean, the guy's a former MIT physics professor, so you'll need to name some names if you want to destroy his credibility about physics. It wouldn't exactly shock me if some of those who laughed the hardest were, coincidentally, working to promote atheism.

 

As for the rest of your post; the Bible took its present (Catholic) form in the 300s when Constantine forced Christian leaders to come to an agreement about which books were scriptural. The book of Genesis is much older than that agreement, of course; large chunks of it were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls area, meaning that it predates Jesus by centuries at least. It is quite possible that Genesis is much older than any extant manuscripts, and that the oldest manuscripts have been destroyed by chance and by time.

 

As for some of the patriarchs in the Old Testament living to be hundreds of years old, a company named Geron is (or at least was) working to replicate the feat. The process of aging is caused by the gradual breakdown of your cells' DNA. This breakdown can be eliminated by causing the telomeres at the end of the DNA strings to regenerate. Cancer cells have such regeneration; which is why no tumor will ever die of old age. If you could control telomeres, you could make the cancer die of old age, while at the same time causing your normal cells not to age.

[Nyghtewynd]

First people complained because they thought religion couldn't explain what happened with the Dollars. Now they're complaining because it can.

229841[/snapback]

 

*DINGDINGDINGDINGDING*

 

Most who argue for science against religion don't know much about either.

[CarolinaBill99]

As for some of the patriarchs in the Old Testament living to be hundreds of years old, a company named Geron is (or at least was) working to replicate the feat. The process of aging is caused by the gradual breakdown of your cells' DNA. This breakdown can be eliminated by causing the telomeres at the end of the DNA strings to regenerate. Cancer cells have such regeneration; which is why no tumor will ever die of old age. If you could control telomeres, you could make the cancer die of old age, while at the same time causing your normal cells not to age.

231121[/snapback]

 

I could accept everything you just said but this... Are you saying that Abraham manipulated the process of mitosis to make himself live longer???? Your thought process is as radical as the atheists you are trying to discredit.

Besides, the books that are in the Bible were manipulated by the political process of the church accepting some and discrediting others. The whole history of Christianity is flawed from the fact that the church is a political entity.

[KurtGodel77]

I could accept everything you just said but this... Are you saying that Abraham manipulated the process of mitosis to make himself live longer????  Your thought process is as radical as the atheists you are trying to discredit. 

Besides, the books that are in the Bible were manipulated by the political process of the church accepting some and discrediting others. The whole history of Christianity is flawed from the fact that the church is a political entity.

231821[/snapback]

I'm not drawing any conclusions about what did or did not happen. Different animals age at different rates. A rat will die of old age within a matter of a few years, while a parrot can live 50 years or more. This is because the DNA in the parrot's cells has a greater resistance to attacks from harmful compounds. If you could increase your cells' resistance to harmful compounds enough, or if you could eliminate enough oxidants/toxins from your system, you too could live 900 years. Such a dramatic improvement is clearly impossible given the current constraints of science; but you can make smaller achievements. Any food with an antioxidant in it will slow the aging process somewhat. I've heard that experiments are underway with a substance that apparently creates a dramatic slowdown--about three fold--in the aging process for very small organisms. The next phase of the testing will be on animals. Given all this, it is at least possible that Adam and the other patriarchs had access to some food or other substance similar in nature to modern known antioxidants, but far more powerful. I'm not saying this did happen, just that it's possible.

 

You are correct to point out that the selection process of which books would appear in the Bible was political, and probably flawed. In fact--and I know I'm going to make some of the people who have agreed with me unhappy--there are three different religions present in the New Testament.

 

- Paulist Phariseeism

- Gnosticism

- Jacobitism

 

Hillel, when asked to summarize the Law while standing on one foot, replied, "that which is hateful to you, do it not unto your neighbor." Paul's summary of the Law was similar, "love your neighbor as yourself." (see Romans 13). In both cases, the Law was summarized without reference to loving or obeying God; indicating that Paul had not changed as much as widely believed from the teachings of his Pharisee teachers. Paul indicated that he'd deviated from the written law because of the liberation of Jesus; the Pharisees deviated from the written law because it was overridden by the oral law--which later became the Talmud. I'm not saying that Paul and the Pharisees were identical--they weren't--just that Paul represents the Christian branch of the Pharisee faith. Paulist works include his own writings, the book of Acts, and some of the minor non-Pauline epistles.

 

Gnosticism was a form of mysticism. One came to God neither by James's works nor Paul's faith, but by a difficult to define mystical experience. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the father except through me," John 14:6. The Gospel of John variously describes the process of becoming one with Jesus as believing in him, eating his flesh and blood, being children of the light, and being born again. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you will not live," John 6:53. "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," John 3:3.

 

Jacobitism--for the lack of a better word--was the Christian group led by James. Its presence in the New Testament is represented by the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle of James, and the book of Revelation. "Blessed is the man that endures temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him," James 1:12. Not only is loving God said to be the key to salvation, but Paul's alternative--faith alone--is specifically rejected. "You believe that there is one God: you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble. . . . but faith without works is dead," James 2:19-20. The law of Moses is to be upheld: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, until all is fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach others so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 5:18-20.

 

So anyone seriously considering becoming a Christian needs to carefully consider which of these three general schools to belong to--Paulism, Gnosticism, or Jacobitism--and then select the New Testament books consistent with that school. The reason that examples of all three schools are included in the New Testament is because each of these three sects had numerous followers when Constantine ordered the Biblical council convened. The Catholic Church has traditionally adopted an embrace and extent approach to the people it dealt with--giving them enough of whatever they were used to so that the conversion to Catholicism wasn't as dramatic a change.

[DC Tom]

I'd be interested to know the names of the scientists who "laughed at" Shroeder. I mean, the guy's a former MIT physics professor, so you'll need to name some names if you want to destroy his credibility about physics. It wouldn't exactly shock me if some of those who laughed the hardest were, coincidentally, working to promote atheism.

231121[/snapback]

 

And likewise...I'd like to know by what expertise, actual or borrowed, you credit Shroeder with that much knowledge and skill. Once again, you ask people to take your drivel at face value while deflecting any criticism with "Prove it"...a standard you can't even hold yourself to.

 

And no, I won't do a point-by-point refutation of your crap (though one easily could - I can come up with three problems with Shroeder's theory, or more accurately your "understanding" of it, without putting effort into it). I'm perfectly content refuting your BS methodology by which you seem to reach any of your conclusions on any topic.

[CarolinaBill99]

Given all this, it is at least possible that Adam and the other patriarchs had access to some food or other substance similar in nature to modern known antioxidants, but far more powerful. I'm not saying this did happen, just that it's possible.

 

Possible??? It is possible that I can win the Powerball lottery tomorrow...

Not gonna happen ...but possible...

If that is the delicate nature of your believe that the old testament is true, the human race is doomed to become extinct very soon.

[KurtGodel77]

And likewise...I'd like to know by what expertise, actual or borrowed, you credit Shroeder with that much knowledge and skill.  Once again, you ask people to take your drivel at face value while deflecting any criticism with "Prove it"...a standard you can't even hold yourself to.

 

And no, I won't do a point-by-point refutation of your crap (though one easily could - I can come up with three problems with Shroeder's theory, or more accurately your "understanding" of it, without putting effort into it).  I'm perfectly content refuting your BS methodology by which you seem to reach any of your conclusions on any topic.

231917[/snapback]

This is exactly what I've come to expect from you: plenty of tough talk, nothing to back it up with. If you COULD do a point-by-point refutation of things I've written, why don't you? Or am I supposed to be stupid enough to simply accept your claim at face value?

 

As for Schroeder, I believe I've already addressed the issue of his qualifications by pointing out he's a former MIT physics professor. The types of calculations necessary to support his theory--such as calculating the speed of the universe's expansion using red shift, calculating the relativistic effect that said expansion would have on the passage of time, etc.--seem well within the ability of any qualified physics professor, let alone one from MIT.

 

You complain that I don't prove things. What more do you want? For our history discussion I cited several sources, including Shirer, Toland, and Laffin. For this discussion about religion and science, I've cited a former MIT physics professor. You, on the other hand, have made so many sweeping statements that you've become an honorary member of the Street Sweepers' Union, yet the only time you cited a source to support anything was when you were arguing about a technicality.

[KurtGodel77]

Possible???  It is possible that I can win the Powerball lottery tomorrow...

Not gonna happen ...but possible...

If that is the delicate nature of your believe that the old testament is true, the human race is doomed to become extinct very soon.

231953[/snapback]

I never said that I fully understood the mechanism by which the patriarchs were kept alive as long as they were. I agree that, based on what we know about science today, the probability of a substance that could keep them alive to age 900 seems low. If, tomorrow, scientists discovered something that could keep people alive that long, I'd obviously have to rethink that probablistic estimite.

[DC Tom]

This is exactly what I've come to expect from you: plenty of tough talk, nothing to back it up with. If you COULD do a point-by-point refutation of things I've written, why don't you? Or am I supposed to be stupid enough to simply accept your claim at face value?

 

As for Schroeder, I believe I've already addressed the issue of his qualifications by pointing out he's a former MIT physics professor. The types of calculations necessary to support his theory--such as calculating the speed of the universe's expansion using red shift, calculating the relativistic effect that said expansion would have on the passage of time, etc.--seem well within the ability of any qualified physics professor, let alone one from MIT.

 

You complain that I don't prove things. What more do you want? For our history discussion I cited several sources, including Shirer, Toland, and Laffin. For this discussion about religion and science, I've cited a former MIT physics professor. You, on the other hand, have made so many sweeping statements that you've become an honorary member of the Street Sweepers' Union, yet the only time you cited a source to support anything was when you were arguing about a technicality.

231960[/snapback]

 

As I said, I have no particular need or desire to refute you point-by-point, as your idiocy is at a much more fundamental level.

 

And then, if I do...you just call them "technicalities". The biggest problem with Schroeder's theory is so glaringly obvious that it should speak for itself, anyway...for anyone who's actually bright enough to think about it, at least.

[KurtGodel77]

As I said, I have no particular need or desire to refute you point-by-point, as your idiocy is at a much more fundamental level.

 

And then, if I do...you just call them "technicalities".    The biggest problem with Schroeder's theory is so glaringly obvious that it should speak for itself, anyway...for anyone who's actually bright enough to think about it, at least.

232073[/snapback]

All you ever do is call me or my ideas idiotic, while never providing a single reason why they are so. Because your posts contain no new information, reading them is not a good use of time for the people on these boards.